Seriously, fight every ticket...

[dazzleman]

"I've never looked at contesting a ticket that I rightfully got as a form of 'protest' because that implies that my having received the ticket was a form of injustice, which it was not in any case that I've experienced."

That's because you think that you can rightfully get a ticket for reasonable behavior.  Your world view is fucked up.  You see getting around the system as a sport and getting caught as simply the cost of playing.  But you accept the rules unquestioningly.  Existence isn't proof of righteousness.  It's only proof of existence.

I may be off base here.  If so, please set me straight.

You gave me a good laugh, Raza.  I like having a world view that is fucked up.  Life is more fun that way...

I'd say you're a little off, but not way off.  I don't unquestioning accept every rule, but I tend to focus my indignation over unjust rules on issues more serious than speed limits.

EDIT:

Raza, here's a song that encapsulates your world view:

Billy Joel ?
Angry Young Man Lyrics

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend he refuses to crawl
And he's always at home with his back to the wall
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost
And struggles and bleeds as he hangs on his cross
And likes to be known as the angry young man

Give a moment or two to the angry young man
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand
He's been stabbed in the back he's been misunderstood
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good
And he sits in his room with a lock on the door
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight
I once believed in causes too
I had my pointless point of view
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right

And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
And his honor is pure and his courage is well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man

Yes there's always a place for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend he refuses to crawl
And he's always at home with his back to the wall
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost
And struggles and bleeds as he hangs on his cross
And likes to be known as the angry young man

[GoCougs]

How can you not accept the rules unquestioningly? You can't change them, and in fact, if recent history is any indication, the rules will become increasingly more restrictive (and penalties more harsh) with each passing year.

[dazzleman]

How can you not accept the rules unquestioningly? You can't change them, and in fact, if recent history is any indication, the rules will become increasingly more restrictive (and penalties more harsh) with each passing year.

I disagree.  I think that Raza's right that it's necessary to question rules.  For me, the issue is which rules to focus on.  I only have so much indignation to go around, and only so much time or energy to worry about things.  Therefore, I am selective about deciding which rules are 'unfair' and try not to apply my judgments in a self-serving way (recognizing the self-justification is behind most people's complaints about 'unfairness.').

You're right that greater restrictions on freedom are a threat for our future.  The problem is that when people expect government to solve their problems for them, ceding freedom is the price to be paid for that.  At some point the pendulum will swing back.  Maybe not in our lifetimes.

[GoCougs]

I disagree.  I think that Raza's right that it's necessary to question rules.  For me, the issue is which rules to focus on.  I only have so much indignation to go around, and only so much time or energy to worry about things.  Therefore, I am selective about deciding which rules are 'unfair' and try not to apply my judgments in a self-serving way (recognizing the self-justification is behind most people's complaints about 'unfairness.').

You're right that greater restrictions on freedom are a threat for our future.  The problem is that when people expect government to solve their problems for them, ceding freedom is the price to be paid for that.  At some point the pendulum will swing back.  Maybe not in our lifetimes.

I should've stated that questioning these particular rules is a lost cause as they will never change (and are only destined to become restrictive); in other words as you state, save the effort for more important battles.

And yes, you can't expect to tolerate ever higher taxation and corresponding increase of governmental power, and expect the same level of personal freedom, let alone more. It's all of the same malaise IMO.

[dazzleman]

I should've stated that questioning these particular rules is a lost cause as they will never change (and are only destined to become restrictive); in other words as you state, save the effort for more important battles.

And yes, you can't expect to tolerate ever higher taxation and corresponding increase of governmental power, and expect the same level of personal freedom, let alone more. It's all of the same malaise IMO.

I heard a saying a long time ago that is so very true.  It has been attributed to various people, but I thought it was by Gerald Ford.

"The government that is powerful enough to give us everything we want is powerful enough to take away everything that we have."

I think of that whenever I hear Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton talk about what they're going to 'give' us (with our own money) by taxing the 'rich' (which will ultimately mean everybody).

[Soup DeVille]

How can you not accept the rules unquestioningly? You can't change them, and in fact, if recent history is any indication, the rules will become increasingly more restrictive (and penalties more harsh) with each passing year.

Easy, you accept the existence of the rules without accepting that they are either reasonable or necessary in their current form.

[Raza]

Soup comes in with the right answer.

[dazzleman]

Soup comes in with the right answer.

Yes, he does.

[Cookie Monster]

I refuse to adopt the idea that law defines the difference between right and wrong.

Well said, Soup, well said.

[GoCougs]

Easy, you accept the existence of the rules without accepting that they are either reasonable or necessary in their current form.

But then why spend the glucose to cogitate the apparent paradox? If they exist their degree of  reasonableness and necessariness seems kinda like a mystical exercise in the ether.

[Lebowski]

But then why spend the glucose to cogitate the apparent paradox? If they exist their degree of  reasonableness and necessariness seems kinda like a mystical exercise in the ether.

Uh, you can choose to ignore the law.

[bing_oh]

Then stop handing out tickets.

Sure, Raza. I'll just go into my Chief's office on monday and tell him that I'm not going to an expected aspect of my job. On second thought, I think I'll pass on that...I like actually having a job and getting a paycheck so that those nasty bills get paid on time.

You do realize that LEO's are employees just like any other working stiff and are expected to do the jobs for which they were hired, right? We have a limited amount of discretion, but that doesn't mean that we can arbitrarily ignore the enforcement of certain laws. We'd get fired (and, potentially, criminally charged).

[rohan]

I think you're right -- I've never heard about people being convicted in abstentia, except in very special cases.  In traffic cases, the charges just remain pending until the person is actually caught in person, which often doesn't happen, since bench warrants for traffic offenses aren't high priority.  The idea that traffic violators are terribly abused by the system is a real fallacy; if anything, the system isn't tough enough on serious violators.

In Michigan if you have a traffic court date - a civil infraction that you aren't found guilty for but are found responsible for- if you don't show up but the officer does you default.  Inother words you lose and have to pay the fines and costs.  Also- to whoever said that your lawyers guarantee no points a lot of states are doing what Michigan has been doing for years and that's not letting magistrates or judges eliminate points- points are assessed by the state not the courts and can't be eliminated.

[rohan]

I'm working in a prosecutor's office this summer.  Violations bureau is coming up in a few weeks.  The DA gives all the driving cases to the second-year law student interns to have fun with.  I'm looking forward to it...I'm sure there will be some great stories!

I thought you actually had to be a lawyer to practice law?  You do here- this would get your "DA" thrown out of office.

[dazzleman]

In Michigan if you have a traffic court date - a civil infraction that you aren't found guilty for but are found responsible for- if you don't show up but the officer does you default.  Inother words you lose and have to pay the fines and costs.  Also- to whoever said that your lawyers guarantee no points a lot of states are doing what Michigan has been doing for years and that's not letting magistrates or judges eliminate points- points are assessed by the state not the courts and can't be eliminated.

I guess it's a state-to-state issue.

[Lebowski]

Sure, Raza. I'll just go into my Chief's office on monday and tell him that I'm not going to an expected aspect of my job. On second thought, I think I'll pass on that...I like actually having a job and getting a paycheck so that those nasty bills get paid on time.

You do realize that LEO's are employees just like any other working stiff and are expected to do the jobs for which they were hired, right? We have a limited amount of discretion, but that doesn't mean that we can arbitrarily ignore the enforcement of certain laws. We'd get fired (and, potentially, criminally charged).

I don't think he meant you personally stop giving out tickets, but in a system where speeding (a relatively minor infraction) is heavily enforced, if speeding cases clog up the court you can hardly blame the people fighting them.

Somebody, whether it is your Chief or the result of pressure he's receiving, is pushing you guys to write a lot of speeding tickets.  If a deluge of speeding related cases is causing delays in court and backing up the system, as far as I'm concerned that is 100% the fault of whatever genius decided to put such emphasis on writing speeding tickets. 

[rohan]

but in a system where speeding (a relatively minor infraction) is heavily enforced, if speeding cases clog up the court you can hardly blame the people fighting them.

Video response here- the video is of cars being crashed at 60 and 100 km/h into a cement wall.  Sure speeding might be a minor infraction as a stand alone- but it's results can be horrific. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/index.html

as far as I'm concerned that is 100% the fault of whatever genius decided to put such emphasis on writing speeding tickets. 

Your villian is Ralph Nader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

[VTEC_Inside]

Video response here- the video is of cars being crashed at 60 and 100 km/h into a cement wall.  Sure speeding might be a minor infraction as a stand alone- but it's results can be horrific. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/index.html

There is nothing horrific about speed itself though. That concrete wall example only serves to scare the less informed IMO. What it more clearly illustrates is that speed differential can cause serious damage. In this case 60/100kph VS 0kph, but of course the wall doesn't move or deform either now does it.

I also question the statistics on that page because thanks to the way speed limits are set, 99% of the driving public is over the limit at any time so its easy to say the "speeding" was a factor in an accident.

You can't lose sight of the fact that speed limits were arbitrarily set by the state, usually lower than the speed most of the people end up driving.

The road where I was nailed has a 70kph only on the hill portion, vs 80kph on top and dropping to 60kph at the bottom. NO ONE slows down as they pass the 70kph sign up top, where the average speed is 90-95kph. I even tried to go down at 70kph once just for shits and giggles and quite frankly, THAT is dangerous with everyone else doing 90kph.

The other part thats dangerous is that everyone (including myself, thats how I know I was under 100kph) knows that there is a fishing hole near the bottom so everyone scrubs of that 10kph or so as they approach the slight corner. One set of brake lights sets off the chain and traffic bunches all to hell.

[Lebowski]

I also question the statistics on that page because thanks to the way speed limits are set, 99% of the driving public is over the limit at any time so its easy to say the "speeding" was a factor in an accident.

When it comes to the "speeding kills" propaganda, the gov't seems to really like to prey on the fact that the average person has no understanding of statistics whatsoever.  I remember going to one of those classes after getting a ticket when I was a teenager (this was before it was all online), and they inundated us with statistics like "60% of fatal accidents involve speeding".

Without knowing what percentage of drivers are speeding at any given time, as well as some data as to how many accidents were 2 car accidents etc., it is impossible to argue a causual relationship with the above quote.  Like you said, it seems like well over 50% of the cars on the road at any given time are speeding, so it makes perfect logical sense that over 50% of cars involved in accidents are also speeding (just as over 50% NOT involved in fatal accidents are speeding).

[GoCougs]

Anti-speeding advocates however have physics on their side - higher speed worsens a crash when it does happen, even if it wasn't the cause. We all know they're 100% correct.

Recently I received a notice in the mail stating that a number of speed limits had been lowered in the surrounding area because of increased congestion. Their explicit reason was with increased congestion comes increased likelihood of accidents, and lower speed = less damaging accidents. They also cited a statistic on pedestrian/car accidents; it was on the order of 80% of pedestrians survive being hit at 25 mph, but 80% do not survive being hit at 35 mph (or something of that magnitude).

Yes, at least 80% of driver material exceed the limit at any given time, but I'd rather my government(s) spend tax dollars on building more roads, not commissioning traffic studies on millions of miles of road so that people can have free license to drive faster. So how about just driving faster if you so choose? Chances of getting caught are extremely slim, and when you do, the penalties (provided it's not an egregious offense) are relatively minor.

The last time I got popped was about a year go for 60mph in a 50mph zone. It was on controlled access divided highway 200 yards or so before the transition to 60mph speed limit, and I was traveling with the flow of traffic. That whole stretch of highway was identical (i.e., not transitioning from more congested to a less congested area). That ticket, and others like it, will serve absolutely 100% zero purpose in making the roads safer. But meh - I knew I was doing it and knew the consequences if caught.

[rohan]

There is nothing horrific about speed itself though. That concrete wall example only serves to scare the less informed IMO. What it more clearly illustrates is that speed differential can cause serious damage. In this case 60/100kph VS 0kph, but of course the wall doesn't move or deform either now does it.

I also question the statistics on that page because thanks to the way speed limits are set, 99% of the driving public is over the limit at any time so its easy to say the "speeding" was a factor in an accident.

You can't lose sight of the fact that speed limits were arbitrarily set by the state, usually lower than the speed most of the people end up driving.

The road where I was nailed has a 70kph only on the hill portion, vs 80kph on top and dropping to 60kph at the bottom. NO ONE slows down as they pass the 70kph sign up top, where the average speed is 90-95kph. I even tried to go down at 70kph once just for shits and giggles and quite frankly, THAT is dangerous with everyone else doing 90kph.

The other part thats dangerous is that everyone (including myself, thats how I know I was under 100kph) knows that there is a fishing hole near the bottom so everyone scrubs of that 10kph or so as they approach the slight corner. One set of brake lights sets off the chain and traffic bunches all to hell.

I never said speed is horrific- nice taking it out of context.  Also you have obviously never been involved in any traffic crash invesitagtion classes or real life traffic crash investigations.  If that wall was a moving car- and both of them were going 100 km/h or roughly 60 mph the impact is equal to 200 km/h or 120 mph - it has the same energy as a crash at that speed.  The energy has to go somewhere-   This video represents what a head-on collision would look like.  I also never pointed to anything on the webpage- I specifically pointed to the video- nothing else.

[Raza]

I think the lesson learned here is to not drive into walls.  I've always been an anti-driving-into-walls advocate.  I just couldn't get a good acronym out of it.  PADIW doesn't roll off the tongue like MADD does. 

As for some of the other comments, I'll come back and reply to them later, when I'm not on this handheld.   But for the most part, I'm with Lebowski.

[rohan]

As for lebowski's comments- I never said speed kills or that speed itself is dangerous.  You guys like to rag on us cops for saying these kinds of things but none of us ever do- we say the crashes that happen at a higher speed are which are made worse because it takes a lot farther to stop the faster you go.  Cougs says it best

Anti-speeding advocates however have physics on their side - higher speed worsens a crash when it does happen, even if it wasn't the cause.

[Lebowski]

Anti-speeding advocates however have physics on their side - higher speed worsens a crash when it does happen, even if it wasn't the cause. We all know they're 100% correct.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

My point isn't so much that speeding isn't dangerous at all, but rather that law enforcement agencies seem to spend a totally disproportionate amount of effort enforcing speed limits, largely because of revenue generation.  I have a feeling that running a red light is more likely to cause an accident than speeding is, yet it's very rare for me to see an LEO camped out at an intersection nailing red light runners.  I have a feeling the primary reason for this is that it would generate far less ticket revenue than setting up a speed trap.  I see all kinds of stupid, dangerous behavior on the road, yet very little effort is spent either ticketing these people or educating the public on how to drive.

Why is it that catching speeders is so important, but making it more difficult to get a license and increasing the education requirement for a license isn't a priority?  It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the fact that speeding tickets generate revenue while increased education costs money.

And Rohan - I'm not ragging on the cops.  Like Bing-Oh said, I realize you guys have bosses you have to answer to, and pressure to put disproportionate emphasis on speeding.  It's not the street cop's fault.


In the end, I just ignore speed limits for the most part.  I have a V1 that has served me pretty well, I've gotten only 1 speeding ticket in the last 5 years or so, so I think it's worth the money to just pay the ticket and continue speeding.

[rohan]

Neither of the departments I've worked for put any pressure on us to write tickets- and they'ld both be just as happy to have someone come in to complain we gave them an undeserved ticket at some redlight in the county as a speed biscuit- either way they'ld just laugh at them.  Now both departments have traffic divisions where the guys have ratios they have to meet but so do general patrol guys.  Our traffic guys have to have 6 traffic contacts for every free hour of patrol and our GP guys have to have 1.5 contacts per free hour of patrol.  But no numbers on tickets because they can't- it's constitutionally prevented.  Our department isn't at all concerned with ticket revenues- we are just trying to make the streets safer or at least as safe as we can with random enformcement and our brass knows that because they've all been deps at one point.  We've got about 750 square miles and several cities and towns so random is the obviously the best we can do. 

In fact almost everytime we have a traffic blitz our department loses money on it- and since we're a not-for-profit organization it's the way it's supposed to be.  Sure we have a pretty big budget- so it hurts us less but it does hurt because that's money straight out of our general operating budget but it has to be done to keep people on the straight and narrow even if it's only for that holiday weekend.  But it does go farther than that because when we've done a blitz the rest of the holidays the high visibility is on everyones mind whent they're traveling.   And remember just because you see the red and blues blinking up ahead it doesn't mean the officer -deputy- trooper- constable is handing out tickets sometimes it's just as effective to run your lights on a stop and hand out warnings.  The people driving by's first thoughts are "I'm glad he's getting the ticket and not me."  If they drive even a little more safe it's done it's job. 

One question- why does everyone that sees a car pulled over on the side of the road with smokey bear behind him assume he got nailed for speeding?  I'ld say that our GP guys only stop about 50% of the cars they stop for speed.

[VTEC_Inside]

I never said speed is horrific- nice taking it out of context.  Also you have obviously never been involved in any traffic crash invesitagtion classes or real life traffic crash investigations.  If that wall was a moving car- and both of them were going 100 km/h or roughly 60 mph the impact is equal to 200 km/h or 120 mph - it has the same energy as a crash at that speed.  The energy has to go somewhere-   This video represents what a head-on collision would look like.  I also never pointed to anything on the webpage- I specifically pointed to the video- nothing else.

My apologies, you are correct, I mis-read the part about horrific.

I understand the physics part of it and I understand what you are talking about. My comments were more specifically aimed at proper divided highways where there is essentially zero potential for a head on crash, and limited potential for an impact with an object as sturdy as a cement wall.

It was also not my intention to direct my comments about the statistics on that page towards you specifically.

[rohan]

And I can't answer for other states but Michigan was one of the first to have a graduated licensing system.  You get a learners permit and have to pass a written test and have 30 hours driving plus I think 2 hours night and then you go to level 2 where you have to have more class time and another 50 hours supervised driving and another 10 hours night driving and only after 6 months of level one.  We're trying but it's got to be gradual otherwise parents will revolt and do what they want.  Plus it's hard for parents to find the time to supervise their kids for roughly 110 hours of driving before they get their license.  There's only so much the state can do and as we know with our public school kids there's only so much parents will do.  The other alternative is enforcement to go hand in hand with the other efforts.

Here's Michigans licensing for graduate levels
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/gdl_parent_16316_7.pdf

Here's the base site
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1627_8669_8998---,00.html

[rohan]

My apologies, you are correct, I mis-read the part about horrific.

I understand the physics part of it and I understand what you are talking about. My comments were more specifically aimed at proper divided highways where there is essentially zero potential for a head on crash, and limited potential for an impact with an object as sturdy as a cement wall.

It was also not my intention to direct my comments about the statistics on that page towards you specifically.

That's fair and completely water under the bridge.  Thanks though for the apology. 

A couple things what do you mean by properly divided?  Michigan for instance has properly divided highways as the areas require according to terrain and traffic.  OUr highways with large medians in more rural areas which have about 50 feet average medians see head on collisions with surprising regularity- maybe one or two a week in the state.  And head ons don't happen a majority of the time on highways most of the time they're on main roads and secondary roads which is why the feds give out secondary road grants to sheriff departments like our s for traffic enforcement on those roads specifically.  In fact most head on collisions in this state occur around 50 mph I don't have a source for that it was in one of our printed things that comes to the department recently within the last 6-8 months.  It was some reminder to look more at drunks and speed as an indicator.

We get enough on the grant which I think is called 802 grants to cover 2 deputies and expenses and add another 4 of our own to the secondary road task force in this county.  These guys are specially trained in OWI and general traffic enforcemetn and go to a couple week long school for it.

[VTEC_Inside]

And I can't answer for other states but Michigan was one of the first to have a graduated licensing system.  You get a learners permit and have to pass a written test and have 30 hours driving plus I think 2 hours night and then you go to level 2 where you have to have more class time and another 50 hours supervised driving and another 10 hours night driving and only after 6 months of level one.  We're trying but it's got to be gradual otherwise parents will revolt and do what they want.  Plus it's hard for parents to find the time to supervise their kids for roughly 110 hours of driving before they get their license.  There's only so much the state can do and as we know with our public school kids there's only so much parents will do.  The other alternative is enforcement to go hand in hand with the other efforts.

Here's Michigans licensing for graduate levels
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/gdl_parent_16316_7.pdf

Here's the base site
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1627_8669_8998---,00.html

We have graduated licensing here as well, but its a sham when it comes down to it.

At 16 you can get your G1, can only drive with a driver licensed for 4yrs or more, no hwy driving, which you have for 1yr or 8months with driver training.

Then you can get your G2 which is full probationary license for a year, then you can get your full G.

Its fully of problems though. The quality of the driver training schools varies WILDLY, from great to why bother. I went through Young Drivers and it was worth every penny. Whatever training my gf had, the guy had her just driving around aimlessly, even to Tim Hortons on a couple occasions.

The other fatal flaw in our system, is that prior to your G2 you are not permitted on the highway (basically the big ones with 100kph limits) unless with an instructor. The G2 test covers nothing specific to highways, but if you pass it, you can start driving on the highway with conceivably NO previous experience doing so.

I know this starts to veer off topic a bit, but I guess its a full circle.

[280Z Turbo]

"I've never looked at contesting a ticket that I rightfully got as a form of 'protest' because that implies that my having received the ticket was a form of injustice, which it was not in any case that I've experienced."

That's because you think that you can rightfully get a ticket for reasonable behavior.  Your world view is fucked up.  You see getting around the system as a sport and getting caught as simply the cost of playing.  But you accept the rules unquestioningly.  Existence isn't proof of righteousness.  It's only proof of existence.

I may be off base here.  If so, please set me straight.

I don't understand him either.

Either...

A.) Speeding is a serious safety issue that kills thousands of people a year and should NOT be taken lightly

Or...

B.) Speeding tickets are bullshit and serve no pupose other than revenue generation

Which is it?